Cost had been the biggest factor in bringing new lighting technology to market. "Initially LEDs were expensive as they were a new technology and bore the cost of innovation and introduction to market," noted Catherine Feliz, LED lamps product manager for Philips Lighting. "Today, quality LEDs are very affordable, especially when utility rebates get factored in."
is in the darkest time of the year with the arrival of winter that perhaps we most appreciate our light bulbs. It isn't just the lights on the holiday decorations that provide that festive glow, but really the fact that the light bulb makes our daily modern life possible. The light bulb is taken for granted, and until recently it hadn't really evolved much in more than a century.
The incandescent light bulb, which Thomas Edison perfected and helped commercialize -- even if others including Alexander Lodygin, Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin and Heinrich Göbel had developed earlier versions -- has changed little in nearly 140 years. It was a prime example of the mantra if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Today the incandescent is for all practical purposes at the end of its lifecycle. Not because it isn't a viable technology, and certainly not because it is broken -- but really because it has numerous shortcomings -- notably in efficiency. The biggest failing with the incandescent light bulb is that it doesn't have a particularly long life and much of the energy used to illuminate a room is actually lost as heat. While improvements have been made, the basic technology behind the incandescent bulb is one that has flaws that simply cannot be remedied.
This is why in recent years there have been moves by federal lawmakers to push for a replacement for the incandescent, while other viable technologies including the bright but all-too-dangerous halogen lamps have faced a phase out or outright ban. As a result many consumers may find themselves facing a new dark age in the home when it comes to having a warm glow in the living room.
First Try: The CFL
Ironically the first true contender to the incandescent for most residential users was a technology that had just as many shortcomings. Halogen lamps were a good alternative to the incandescent as these provided a nice, warm bright light -- but the bulbs were so hot that these could easily cause fires. Hence, the Halogens have all but faded to black.
The incandescent is now following suit.
The campaign to phase out incandescent light bulbs for general lighting has not been limited to the United States. Regulators in Brazil, Venezuela, the European Union, Switzerland and Australia began to phase out the century old lighting technology in 2009. Argentina and Russia followed suit in 2012. The United States, Canada, Mexico, Malaysia and South Korea opted to pass measures that phased out the bulbs for general lighting in favor of more energy-efficient lighting alternatives in 2014.
This move, which was years in coming, didn't exactly leave consumers in the dark, but it did create some confusion and by some accounts left users with light that was anything but satisfactory. The solution was the compact fluorescent light (CFL), known for its twisted design and, by some accounts, its off putting color tone that isn't exactly warm.
"The U.S. government decided that if you can get a compact fluorescent that gives 100 watts of light that is good enough," said professional lighting designer Randall Whitehead of Randall Whitehead Lighting Solutions. "It didn't seem to matter that the bulb hums, doesn't look as good or couldn't be easily dimmed.
"The government was thinking of wattage equivalent, and didn't seem to consider other factors," Whitehead told TechNewsWorld. "It was a race to find an affordable alternative and the CFL won."
This isn't to say that fluorescents will go away. Fluorescent lights are still used in commercial spaces and in the home the long tube bulbs are a popular choice for garages, basements and other spaces where a lot of light is needed.
"[Fluorescent bulbs] are still viable as cost effective lighting for businesses and commercial spaces," added Kelly A. Cunningham, outreach director of the California Lighting Technology Center, UC Davis. "It isn't fair to say that these bulbs were a dead-end on the evolutionary tree."
New Alphabet
Understanding the shortcomings of CFLs requires understanding another concept in lighting -- namely the coloring rendering index (CRI), which is considered the gold standard for determining the quality of lighting. Incandescent lights typically score in the high 90s but CFLs weren't even close.
"CFLs were pushed into the American home through manufacturers and Energy Star," Cunningham told TechNewsWorld. "This may have been well-intended, but it was really a race to the bottom. It was the first real challenger to incandescent bulbs and no one seemed to pay attention to the CRI."
CFLs tend to give off light that is bluer or greener and reds don't render as well, Cunningham noted. "In other parts of the world this wasn't a problem because there had been a preference for that cooler tone of lights, but the bigger issue was that there wasn't the education that you could get warmer light with CFLs."
As noted, traditional fluorescent lights do the job in work spaces and basements and provide warm as well as cool light. This fact was never addressed with the CFLs. This issue could be essentially moot -- if not muted now -- because the last couple of years have seen the emergence of another lighting technology: the light emitting diode, or LED.
is in the darkest time of the year with the arrival of winter that perhaps we most appreciate our light bulbs. It isn't just the lights on the holiday decorations that provide that festive glow, but really the fact that the light bulb makes our daily modern life possible. The light bulb is taken for granted, and until recently it hadn't really evolved much in more than a century.
The incandescent light bulb, which Thomas Edison perfected and helped commercialize -- even if others including Alexander Lodygin, Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin and Heinrich Göbel had developed earlier versions -- has changed little in nearly 140 years. It was a prime example of the mantra if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Today the incandescent is for all practical purposes at the end of its lifecycle. Not because it isn't a viable technology, and certainly not because it is broken -- but really because it has numerous shortcomings -- notably in efficiency. The biggest failing with the incandescent light bulb is that it doesn't have a particularly long life and much of the energy used to illuminate a room is actually lost as heat. While improvements have been made, the basic technology behind the incandescent bulb is one that has flaws that simply cannot be remedied.
This is why in recent years there have been moves by federal lawmakers to push for a replacement for the incandescent, while other viable technologies including the bright but all-too-dangerous halogen lamps have faced a phase out or outright ban. As a result many consumers may find themselves facing a new dark age in the home when it comes to having a warm glow in the living room.
First Try: The CFL
Ironically the first true contender to the incandescent for most residential users was a technology that had just as many shortcomings. Halogen lamps were a good alternative to the incandescent as these provided a nice, warm bright light -- but the bulbs were so hot that these could easily cause fires. Hence, the Halogens have all but faded to black.
The incandescent is now following suit.
The campaign to phase out incandescent light bulbs for general lighting has not been limited to the United States. Regulators in Brazil, Venezuela, the European Union, Switzerland and Australia began to phase out the century old lighting technology in 2009. Argentina and Russia followed suit in 2012. The United States, Canada, Mexico, Malaysia and South Korea opted to pass measures that phased out the bulbs for general lighting in favor of more energy-efficient lighting alternatives in 2014.
This move, which was years in coming, didn't exactly leave consumers in the dark, but it did create some confusion and by some accounts left users with light that was anything but satisfactory. The solution was the compact fluorescent light (CFL), known for its twisted design and, by some accounts, its off putting color tone that isn't exactly warm.
"The U.S. government decided that if you can get a compact fluorescent that gives 100 watts of light that is good enough," said professional lighting designer Randall Whitehead of Randall Whitehead Lighting Solutions. "It didn't seem to matter that the bulb hums, doesn't look as good or couldn't be easily dimmed.
"The government was thinking of wattage equivalent, and didn't seem to consider other factors," Whitehead told TechNewsWorld. "It was a race to find an affordable alternative and the CFL won."
This isn't to say that fluorescents will go away. Fluorescent lights are still used in commercial spaces and in the home the long tube bulbs are a popular choice for garages, basements and other spaces where a lot of light is needed.
"[Fluorescent bulbs] are still viable as cost effective lighting for businesses and commercial spaces," added Kelly A. Cunningham, outreach director of the California Lighting Technology Center, UC Davis. "It isn't fair to say that these bulbs were a dead-end on the evolutionary tree."
New Alphabet
Understanding the shortcomings of CFLs requires understanding another concept in lighting -- namely the coloring rendering index (CRI), which is considered the gold standard for determining the quality of lighting. Incandescent lights typically score in the high 90s but CFLs weren't even close.
"CFLs were pushed into the American home through manufacturers and Energy Star," Cunningham told TechNewsWorld. "This may have been well-intended, but it was really a race to the bottom. It was the first real challenger to incandescent bulbs and no one seemed to pay attention to the CRI."
CFLs tend to give off light that is bluer or greener and reds don't render as well, Cunningham noted. "In other parts of the world this wasn't a problem because there had been a preference for that cooler tone of lights, but the bigger issue was that there wasn't the education that you could get warmer light with CFLs."
As noted, traditional fluorescent lights do the job in work spaces and basements and provide warm as well as cool light. This fact was never addressed with the CFLs. This issue could be essentially moot -- if not muted now -- because the last couple of years have seen the emergence of another lighting technology: the light emitting diode, or LED.
Comments
Post a Comment